I’d say that’s false equivalency if there ever was some. For example, in the article you described as “quite similar” to what happened with Russia, here’s a critical quote…

“There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election.”

And what was the connection between Clinton camp and Ukraine? Well that’s in another quote…

“A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.”

So on the one hand, we have proof of Russia hacking the US election to rig it for Trump, and now have proof of collusion… and on the other hand we have mere allegations that a Ukrainian Operative reached out to Clinton to say “holy crap, Trump is working with Russia!”

And you want to claim these are similar? Seriously?

To make it crystal clear, this is like if you were caught red handed cheating on your exam, and your buddies starting spreading a rumor that a classmate tried to tell the professor you were cheating, which was against the rules because there’s not supposed to be any talking during the test. And so you and your friends are saying “yeah, so basically, it’s like there wasn’t any cheating and it didn’t have any effect. Also, the real criminal here is that snitch.”

That’s pretty much the situation. I mean, seriously, one group was violating the law and working with Russia, the other group /allegedly/ heard from a single operative who said “holy crap, they’re working with Russia.” You’ve got to be pretty far down the infowars hole to see that as even remotely the same.

Furthermore, I find it rather interesting that the right wing response to proof of collusion with Russia, is to attack Clinton and an attempt to link her to Russia’s political enemy. They could have gone with anyone. I mean, the UK was warning the US about the hacking as were other countries, but they just happen to go for the country that Russia is occupying?

It’s almost like they GOP are working hand in glove with Putin, isn’t it?

I have been told by a friend who is *generally* pretty well-informed that the Russian lawyer had overstayed her visa after having been granted an extension by Loretta Lynch for unknown reasons and that said lawyer had been brought here initially to meet with Democrats re: potential dirt on Trump. I haven’t found any confirmation of this, but I haven’t had as much digging time as I would like. Do you have any info about this?
And also – THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! for this and the BHP.

This is the new death panel conspiracy theory of theirs. And what they learned from 2009 is that it doesn’t matter how stupid the conspiracy theory is, if you scream it loud enough people will think you have a point.